The case had to do with flu vaxx, but court ruled that a vaxx cannot be required because it violates informed consent.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (73)
sorted by:
Even if this doesn't count as legal precedent for other countries, it seems like it would serve as a legal pattern? If this is deemed illegal in Australia, it should be deemed illegal elsewhere for the same reasons?
I would think that if they are citing ‘informed consent’ that it refers to basic Nuremburg code which is international. I notice they are requiring people in NY to waive informed consent (if you go the testing route), which can be revoked in writing at any time. Its super fishy…